if u arent trying to learn then carry on but dont act like u are
No, it reinforces my conclusions no matter which way I take it. He reads a pop philosophy book, thinks he's learned what he needs to, and that's that. He doesn't even learn anything from the book: he dismisses anything in it that challenges his conceptions out of pocket without actually creating an argument about why he is right
Well, thatâs largely why I am of the mind that itâs not a helpful book. I think it promotes the mind view that hbotz has, whether it was there to begin with, or not.
The idea that you wouldnât include the historical context seems.... like a real disservice to the topic.
Basically it comes across as the ultimate of masturbatory philosophizing if itâs in the hands of anyone not 12 or 13.
But let me continue....
wait, seriously? ewiz, do you agree with this?
if the book is that disconnected with the academic field then i regret reading it. also im pretty sure its not pro-materialist or whatever given the author staunchly isnt.
No, you don't create counterarguments. You just repeat the same shit. Here, prove me wrong and make a counterargument to this one:
- By definition, for a theory to be scientifically acceptable it must have an analysis of what could be empirically observed that could falsify that theory.
- You have no falsifiability criterion for your "theory" that consciousness is contained in the brain
- Your "theory" is not scientifically valid/acceptable
- You say that the only ideas and concepts worth examining are scientific ones
- Your "theory" is not worth examining and isn't valid
It's the first one.
also, what value do you think the historical context adds here? i do think historical context has some value and belongs in books, but i also would like well-constructed theories to stand along and be convincing in a timeless fashion.
Thoughts on this one?
Conclusion should sound familiar to the real masturbators among us.
It's intensely disconnected because it's intended for a reader whose level is below even a gened philosophy course. Almost everything written in the book is from philosophy that was written before the 18th century. It provides no citations and is far, far too short to provide any sufficient depth. It does seem aimed at a middle-school level
Then you misunderstand philosophy entirely. Philosophy is a dialogue. No philosophical work exists on its own: it is always a response to a previous work or works. It is affirming and extending or critiquing and rectifying. Without the historical context, the work loses a great deal of its meaning and value
well, theres lots of ways consciousness could be observed to be apparently metaphysical and not contained wholly in the brain. like if you smashed someone's brain and their ghost floated out and started yelling at you. that would disprove my theory.
but this experiment is clearly contrived. but if there is no possible non-contrived experiment at all, then i am still happy to reject dualism on the basis that there is no reason to believe it.
i think this is a non-contrived experiment. do you stand by this, still?
mathematics and science also has some of these qualities but you can still take the important parts out and put them in a standalone book.
this decreases my motivation to understand the field if you cant abstract out the important parts without going down the entire rabbit hole.
It seems that this really gets to the problem of pop science, and I'd say it applies just as much to pop philosophy
There is also no reason to believe the "contained in the brain" argument as well.
Reread it. Tell me how we'd distinguish between a machine that mimics human behavior and an AI that is actually conscious. Give me a falsifiable experiment for that
Frankly I want to continue reading this further before I say more. But I also need to sleep and this fucking shit doesnât do enough for my life In this moment so thereâs that.
yes, so youre making a claim that is non-falsifiable in principle because youve carefully defined it to be so. if its non-falsifiable in principle then i can go on believing any one and it will have zero effects at all. so i pick the simpler one.
What? In mathematics, it's even more important. You can't just pick up some measure theory book and learn anything unless you've already learned complex analysis (or maybe real analysis if it's a super basic, intro-level measure theory book).
No, your claim isn't falsifiable. You make a scientific claim. For it to be scientifically valid, it must be falsifiable. I make no scientific claims. I don't have to provide an empirical way to falsify them, precisely because I acknowledge that my claims are not empirical
you were talking about historical context. obviously there are prerequisites.
for example, abstract algebra has a lot of historical context involving lots of people who studied lots of different things. but in books they reorganize it such that it can be studied without the historical context.
You miss the point of what historical context is. It's what the work is responding to. Please, tell me how you can take a course on abstract algebra without first taking a course introducing basic proofs. Without a course on extremely basic number theory?
Actually, just explain to me what the concept of a field is.